David Davis attends hard-Brexit cabal meeting

Posted on October 4, 2016 by Robert Pigney

David Davis, our illustrious Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (“Yes, Minister” much?) has been saying that he is consulting widely to gather diverse views on Brexit: to use my grandfather’s word, cobblers.

So far Mr Davis appears to have only consulted a rather small group of hardcore Brexiteers when he attended a seminar at Oxford last month, and having attended this seminar, the government has apparently plucked its “Great Repeal Bill” from the resulting report.

This flies in the face of the Government’s pledge to “make Brexit work for everyone”. It seems that the Government is simply going to do as it pleases, and only compromise as much as is necessary to get what Mrs May and her Brexiteers want and be damned to anybody who is not satisfied, including, ironically, people who are in favour of, and voted for, whatever flavour of Brexit is not adopted.

Possibly more worrying is the fact that the condensed report jointly published by the Centre for Social Justice and Legatum Institute seems to endorse a number of lies, misconceptions and xenophobic feelings circulating during the referendum campaign and furthermore, seems to condone and encourage acting upon these lies, misconceptions and xenophobic feelings. The report seems indifferent to the veracity or lack thereof in most of these statements, or the borderline if not outright racist nature of some the feelings and views expressed, or finally the potential pitfalls ignored by taking as fact the misconceptions presented.

The notion that the Government is plucking policy from this kind of material or that it has any scruples in further spreading it’s content is disturbing indeed , as is the indication that it has no other resources/ideas to draw on or.

Please support the People’s Challenge on our crowdfunding campaign: https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/parliament-should-decide/

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Press%20Releases%202016/LEGJ4799_Brexit_report_0916_WEB.PDF

legj4799_brexit_report_0916_web

Posted in Brexit | Tagged | Leave a comment

Theresa May on Art. 50 by March: Here’s my Challenge to her

Posted on October 2, 2016 by Robert Pigney

The latest on Brexit is that Theresa May will trigger article 50 by march 2017. On Sunday morning, on Andrew Marr’s radio programme, she also said that there would be a “Great Repeal Bill” to enshrine all EU law in UK law so that future governments can keep or repeal legislation at their leisure.

My response to this is: “Really?!” During the referendum campaign, EU legislation was made out to be the bane of the earth. It was costly, complicated, restrictive and an unwanted imposition. It was so evil that now we’re making sure we can keep it.

Now we get to the good bit. Theresa May said, and I quote, “[The Great Repeal Bill] will return power and authority to the elected institutions of our country.” Oh, Mrs May, why do you test me so?

For those who have been living under a stone for the last few months, Mrs May’s Government is being taken to court for bypassing our highest elected institution: our Sovereign Parliament.

Now that Mrs May is interested in returning power and authority to elected institutions, I am extending an invitation to her.

In this, the UK’s moment of greatest need, I invite her to do precisely as her Minister for Brexit is saying, which is, “It will be for elected politicians here to make the changes…”, and to, as she says, “return power and authority to the elected institutions of our country.”

Mrs May, as you are neither elected as PM nor a sovereign institution, I invite you to defer, in these historic and apparently irreversible decisions that are being made, to the highest elected institution in the land: Our Sovereign Parliament. “That is what people voted for: power and authority residing once again with the sovereign institutions of our own country.”

Posted in Brexit | Tagged , | Leave a comment

£100,000 Milestone for the People’s Challenge.

Posted on September 29, 2016 by Robert Pigney

The People’s Challenge has recently exceeded £100,000 in donations, with great progress being made in the last few days. These donations have enabled us to forge onward with our legal challenge to the Govt. With both our and the Govt’s arguments being made public, all our supporters can see that our case appears strong.

We have some, if not all, of the UK’s best public law and human rights experts in our legal team and we are confident in the case they are putting forward on our and your behalf.

Chris Formaggia said:

“We have an amazing legal team and each of my co-interested parties has a valuable life experience that adds to the case but I take my hat off to all the heroes and heroines who have and continue to support our case with their hard earned cash….your faith in our case is a wonderful thing”.

When the courts deliver their verdict and justice is done it will have been thanks to our backers without whom this would all have been nigh on impossible.

Tahmid Chowdhury said:

“In recent years the civil justice system has become increasingly difficult to access for ordinary citizens. Thanks to the generosity of all of those who have donated on and/or shared our Crowd Justice campaign we are able to ensure that our terrific legal team gets the voices of ordinary people heard in this groundbreaking case.”

Please support the People’s Challenge

Posted in Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged , | Leave a comment

People’s Challenge group win right to publish secret Government Defence in Brexit case

Posted on September 28, 2016 by Robert Pigney
A group of ‘concerned British Citizens’ involved in the challenge to the Government’s plans to use the Royal Prerogative to evoke Art 50 have won the right to publish its complete legal defence and an unredacted version of their submissions ahead of a Court hearing in October. The Government had strongly objected to the defence being published arguing that a case management order made in July meant all Court papers had to remain confidential. However, in an Order made last night in response to an urgent application by the group, Mr Justice Cranston ruled that:

“… the parties are not prohibited from publishing the Defendant’s or their own Detailed Grounds… against the background of the principle of open justice, it is difficult to see a justification for restricting publication of documents which are generally available under the Rules”

The People’s Challenge group has been crowdfunding to raise money to actively participate in the Article 50 litigation begun in July by Dier Dos Santos and Lisa Miller so it can ensure a range of British Citizens’ interests are at the forefront of the Court’s mind. Last week, the group’s legal team made detailed legal submissions to the Court arguing that Article 50 cannot be invoked using prerogative powers and that only an Act of Parliament, preceded by proper parliamentary scrutiny, will be constitutionally sufficient.

John Halford of Bindmans LLP represents the group. He commented today:

“The Court’s Order allows a floodlight to be shone on the government’s secret reasons for believing it alone can bring about Brexit without any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. Those who were unsettled by the Government’s insistence on its defence being kept secret, will now be surprised by the contents, including submissions that Brexit has nothing constitutionally to do with the Scottish and Northern Ireland devolved governments, that Parliament ‘clearly understood’ it was surrendering any role it might have in Brexit by passing the EU Referendum Act, that it has no control over making and withdrawal from treaties and that individuals can have fundamental rights conferred by Acts of Parliament stripped away if and when the executive withdraws from the treaties on which they are based. These arguments will be tested in Court next month, but now they can be debated by the public too.”

Members of the People’s Challenge group also welcomed the ruling. Robert Pigney commented:

“After much secrecy the government have been made to show their legal arguments by the High Court – a big a step for the public to get closer to the truth of the government’s position and intentions.”

Tahmid Chowdhury said:

“In initially withholding disclosure of their arguments, the Government made a mockery of the transparency needed in a thriving democracy. They clearly now know they had no leg to stand on, and one can only hope the same thing happens in this case that should never have needed to come to court.”

Grahame Pigney said:

“It is good to see that the court has injected common sense and natural justice into the case. Proof, if any is needed, that that ordinary people working together, well organised and supported are capable of challenging and winning anything.”

Chris Formaggia added:

“It is hugely pleasing to learn that the court finds for the disclosure to the public of the arguments for and against the use of the archaic Royal Prerogative in a case that is of such enormous public interest.”

Support us: People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50: A Parliamentary Prerogative

Posted in High Court | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Brexit poker – a game where neither Parliament nor the British public get to see the cards

Posted on September 27, 2016 by Robert Pigney

The government’s go-to response to just about all Brexit-related queries is getting rather old for some: “the government won’t disclose strategy”. In fact the government is playing its cards so close to its chest that it’s entirely possible that even it doesn’t know what kind of hand it has.

As regards negotiations, the EU, the UK public, not even Parliament knows what the government is doing, what it’s aiming for, or what it’s contingency(ies) is/are.

But the secrecy doesn’t stop there. If the government is right and can use the Royal Prerogative to invoke Article 50, Parliament is to be left out of the Brexit process altogether. That’s why the People’s Challenge is litigating to ensure proper Parliamentary scrutiny – and accountability.

True to form, the government wants the litigation itself to be cloaked in secrecy, subverting one of the hallmarks of the British legal system – open justice. It is insisting on every word of its legal defence on the use of Prerogative powers remaining confidential, prompting an urgent application by the People’s Challenge to seek the Court’s permission to publish it. Hopefully the Court will insist that this material at least sees the light of day.

One wonders whether the government is being so secretive in order to avoid showing its weakness, or should I say more weaknesses? Does it have any realistic plans? Are there any realistic contingencies being investigated? Are we headed straight for a brick wall, and if so, does the government know it? And if government is confident in its arguments that no Parliamentary scrutiny is needed, why is it hiding them? Can No 10 find its own back garden without a map, a torch and written instructions? No one knows.

Unless the government starts telling somebody something then it seems likely that the UK public will only get to know the truth about Brexit after the fact. I smell a particularly unflattering Parliamentary report coming up. After the Iraq war and the intervention in Libya it’s become abundantly clear that a PM has to be supervised while taking important measures and making important decisions.

From the chaos in the rest of government (not to  mention the rest of the UK political scene), it seems possible that even the cabinet is unsure about Theresa May’s intentions. I think the PM’s secrecy is very telling, she has told nobody what is going on, and that includes both Parliament and the UK public.

So with your money, security and future on the line I leave you with the final, haunting, question. What is Mrs May hiding behind that poker face, a full house or a busted flush?

Robert Pigney is one of the Interested Parties bringing the People’s Challenge to the Government’s attempt to leave the EU using Royal Prerogative powers

Posted in High Court | Tagged , | 2 Comments

A sweeping re-distribution of power from Government to… Theresa May?

Posted on September 26, 2016 by Grahame Pigney

In 2010 the Tory Party made a commitment to making “the use of the Royal Prerogative subject to greater democratic control so that Parliament is properly involved in all big national decisions”.

The Prime Minister and her three Brexiteers are now saying that proper involvement of Parliament in all big national decisions does not apply to the when, how and under what conditions the UK should leave the EU. They are maintaining that they can re-write the rules however they like and everybody else can like it or lump it.

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50: A Parliamentary Prerogative

Christopher Chope, Conservative MP – 25th May 2010

I also in my preliminary remarks refer to the fact that I was elected, and was proud to be elected, on the Conservative party manifesto. I was pleased, as I am sure the Deputy Leader of the House is pleased, that page 63 of the Conservative party manifesto included the Conservative commitment to change Britain

“with a sweeping re-distribution of power…from Government to Parliament.”

We all signed up to that in the Conservative party and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be consistent with that part of the manifesto. For the sake of completeness, I refer to page 67 of the manifesto where there was a pledge

“to make the use of the Royal Prerogative subject to greater democratic control so that Parliament is properly involved in all big national decisions.”

Hansard 25 May 2010 : Column 136

 

Posted in Brexit | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Public debate: a threat to the Govt’s overbearing secrecy?

Posted on September 25, 2016 by kathryna1

“The government is shutting down public debate… [on use of Royal Prerogative]” says the Guardian.

It certainly seems to be the case – but why?

A good while back, Mrs Thatcher refused to allow the voices of Sinn Fein to be heard on British TV, because she wished to deny them “the oxygen of publicity”. It wasn’t one of her better ideas.

Now, Mrs May appears to be on a similar trail. There’s a big difference, though.

Public debate about Brexit and about the invocation of Article 50 is not linked in any way to illegal activities, nor, despite hysterical allegations about treachery, to any lack of nationalism or love of country: the opposite, in fact.

It’s about the preservation of our democracy and the Sovereignty of Parliament. The mantra of “Take back control” seems relevant here, a point apparently lost on the Brexiteers who insult me on Facebook.

It’s also about continuing the significant help from the EU to organisations and to areas of our countries that really need it, such as Cornwall, areas of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales… this is lots of vital money for communities that really need it.

A number of those areas voted for Brexit. It would be better if they didn’t have to find out the hard way what the cost is.

“Meanwhile, back at the point”, why are Theresa May and her Brexiteers attempting to silence the opposing voices?

There are of course a number of possibilities. Not in any order of importance, they might be…

No, sorry, I think there are only two, still not necessarily in order of importance:

the Government wants to invoke Brexit, without opposition and without involving Parliament (in case Parliament rejects it), to promote Conservative party unity, whether that is in the best interests of the UK or not;

or the Government has no real idea about how to answer the arguments of the opposing voices, and is treading water, waiting for inspiration.

Both these possibilities are horrendous.

Either the Government and the unelected PM care more about the future of the Conservative Party than anything else, or… they are clueless. Would you care to choose?

Either way, the Government must be challenged. Please support The Peoples’ Challenge www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/parliament-should-decide, which aims to have the Brexit “decision” (from the advisory referendum) put to Parliamentary debate and vote.

Our current support allows us to be represented in court in October.

A BIG thank you to all those who have made this possible.

We still need pledges to make sure we can carry on to take the Government all the way to the Supreme Court in December if we have to. I think we will have to, so please help us to uphold the rights of all UK Citizens and the Sovereignty of the UK Parliament.

Posted in What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Theresa May’s guide to what “Brexit means Brexit” actually means.

Posted on September 22, 2016 by Grahame Pigney

Source: Pride’s Purge ~ an irreverent look at UK politics

Posted in Brexit | Tagged | Leave a comment

“When we have decided what you voted for, we will tell you.”

Posted on September 11, 2016 by Grahame Pigney

It used to be claimed during the Cold War that in the countries of the Soviet bloc elections could not take place until the government had decided what their result should be. Here, we order these matters differently.

We had a referendum on 23rd June about the European Union, but the government has still to decide what its result will be.

The widely-advertised “brain-storming session” of Mrs May on 31st August has taken us little further in the search for content to fill out the empty assertion that “Brexit means Brexit.”

The only specific matter upon which Mrs May and her colleagues could apparently agree was their hostility to the principle of European free movement.

This is not an encouraging basis on which to erect a negotiating strategy for the “sensible and orderly departure” of the United Kingdom from the EU that Mrs May says she seeks.

Source: Brendan Donnelly “When we have decided what you voted for, we will tell you.” | The Federal Trust

Posted in Brexit | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Parliament: Cornerstone of Britain or a footstool for Theresa May?

Posted on September 11, 2016 by Grahame Pigney

The Palace of Westminster is the seat of the most powerful and important body in the UK: Parliament.

Although some powers have been devolved, Parliament has legislative supremacy over all other political and administrative bodies in the UK and its territories.

Enter Mrs May, in her capacity as shoe-in PM she has decided that she is the supreme authority in the land and will be making decisions without consulting with or answering to anyone.

This would require Parliament to do the bidding of the Prime Minister, in which case why do we bother electing our MPs? Surely, if they are there to do TM’s bidding, it would be far more efficient and convenient if she just appointed them herself.

We elect our MPs to represent and serve us, we pay them to exercise their skill and judgment and decide what is best for the UK as a whole, with a special consideration for their constituency.

This un-elected PM has no mandate and the UK is in the throes of a major crisis, now more than ever we need our Sovereign Parliament to exercise said Sovereignty.

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50: A Parliamentary Prerogative

 

Posted in Brexit | Tagged , | Leave a comment